Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, John DeSoi <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Date: 2006-05-19 16:22:25
Message-ID: 446DF0C1.3070200@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 02:58:11PM -0400, Mark Woodward wrote:
>>> The reality is that MySQL is widely supported by some very, shall we
>>> say,
>>> "interesting" open source projects and using these products with
>>> PostgreSQL would be a plus.
>>
>> The biggest headache I find with using postgres is that various GPL
>> licenced programs have trouble directly shipping postgresql support
>> because of our use of OpenSSL. Each and every one of those program
>> needs to add an exception to their licence for distributors to
>> distribute postgresql support.
>
> Why would that be the case... OpenSSL and PostgreSQL both are BSD
> licensed... Am I missing something?

http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2

Of course, on that reasoning, they would need to provide a similar
exception for libpq with or without openssl. More and more I love the
fact that we don't play these games.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rod Taylor 2006-05-19 16:25:44 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-05-19 16:15:38 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-19 16:24:36 Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax
Previous Message Jim C. Nasby 2006-05-19 16:20:48 Re: text_position worst case runtime